The government can demand safe encryption that only "good little boys and girls," can break, but it can also demand the squaring of the circle, breaking the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and ever so many more impossible feats.

But where are the banks and other financial houses? Are they going to put up with this?

The point I am making here is that No matter how brilliant anyone is, they can make disastrous errors. Especially when they are out of their field. Castigating this guy is meaningless. It is his decision that should be buried, not his mind that should be slandered.

Pai is set to destroy one of the most marvelous libraries and means of communication ever invented, intelligence, thoughtfulness and intent have never saved anybody from making tremendous mistakes.

Look at the idiocies of Linus Pauling who claimed that DNA was three stranded, Vit C could stop the human rhinovirus. And the biggest whopper was what any 1st year chem student made, was that the Watson and Crick model was impossible because it had the Phosphorous forcing each outward, when everyone knew similar charges attract (they do not.) Yet Pauling was a brilliant atomic scientist as long as he stayed in his own field

As I recall it Ms A and/or Ms W were known affiliates of the CIA. There is quite the possibility that these incidents were Honey Traps. Especially given the actions that we have seen from the DOJ, FBI, and other alphabet agencies, who have violated the law, their oaths, and the Constitution at their whims.

The FBI is not competent supervise the specification of, design or building of any computer system. By 2010 the FBI had spent or intended to spend $4.5 billion dollars on computer systems that did not work, or have proved not to work, despite warnings that the systems would never work.

After browsing this particular column and reader comments, the following page popped up on my browser while I was attending to something else. I had performed no action which should have actuated the page. I can only believe that an external source is monitoring my browsing for pages that contain references to a Management Engine. The URL of the site in question follows:

"The law is the law" is a grossly over fatigued chestnut. This law is unconstitutional. The way to eliminate it is to become a member of the class that has standing to challenge it. Basically to break it, and then take your chances at being found guilty, or that the law is unconstitutional.

The media did what the media is supposed to do in these cases. It violated the law, and took the chance. They should be applauded for their bravery in upholding the Constitution, not whipped with a sad platitude.

One good example of Daydream's thesis is the abuse of section 213 of the Patriot Act. SESTRA will undoubtedly follow the along the same track:

"The Patriot Act continues to wreak its havoc on civil liberties. Section 213 was included in the Patriot Act over the protests of privacy advocates and granted law enforcement the power to conduct a search while delaying notice to the suspect of the search. Known as a “sneak and peek” warrant, law enforcement was adamant Section 213 was needed to protect against terrorism. But the latest government report detailing the numbers of “sneak and peek” warrants reveals that out of a total of over 11,000 sneak and peek requests, only 51 were used for terrorism. Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties."

Agreed. Why does it take 9 shots to bring down from a suspect at a distance of 15 feet? This policeman appears to be a danger danger to the public, spraying bullets without aiming, or not being able to hit what he is aiming at.

It is not a "known fact" that police are required to have limited intellectual capacity. Many police candidates pay to take courses that will help them score more highly on the mentation portion of the testing.

Google "police preparation courses."

Merely repeating that an occult practice is widespread is not proof of anything.

Proof that there are too many LEOs. When they have to invent crimes to create busy work for the existing cadre of law enforcement, then there are simply too many police. Remove half of them, and see if they still have time to create such excuses for their existence.

It is permissible for a police department to have a policy that bars individuals who are intelligent, but it is not necessary for police departments to require a limit on applicant intelligence.

Many police forces require after post high school academic work. You can google "police hiring post education."

This particular rumor (that intelligent individuals could not police officers) on a in the 2nd circuit, which ruled that

"Jordan sued the city alleging discrimination, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld that it wasn’t discrimination. “Why?” you might ask. Because New London Police Department applied the same standard to everyone who applied to be a cop there."